Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2731
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Until a few days ago I was still using the original, October 2005, firmware on my 5D, but I've now upgraded it to 1.1.1 so that I could take advantage of the lens correction features in DPP 3.4.1. These allow correction of RAW files for peripheral illumination (vignetting), distortion, chromatic aberration and colour blur. The corrections can be applied individually or together, and the amount is adjustable from 0 to over the default, 100%.
Yesterday I tried shooting some architectural type shots using my EF 20 f2.8, and it's fair to say that I am impressed. I bought the EF20 f2.8 years ago to give me some wide-angle coverage on a 10D, but after trying it on my 5D and finding quite severe vignetting at f2.8 & f4, it's stayed at home. The vignetting correction works at full aperture where it's needed most, and it seems as though I've got a reasonable copy of the EF20 f2.8. I used the magnifier to check how it it dealt with colour blur, in the corners, and it did a good job of tidying up the image.
My normal browser and RAW converter is Breezebrowser and it has included 3rd. party (fee payable) correction for geometric distortion only for some time.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
zx9
old hand
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1137
Loc: London
|
|
I have been very impressed with the lens correction in the latest DPP, much quicker than using distort, lens correction in PS.
Even sorts out some of my EF 17-35 L's purple fringes and assorted crimes against straight lines.
--------------------
ZX9 (Keith)   
My Flickr Pictures
|
LargeFormat
veteran
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1213
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
DxO offers something similar for supported bodies and lenses.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38327
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
DxO offers something similar for supported bodies and lenses.
Indeed; it was the first to do so. DPP's version is now pretty good, though. In fact I'm increasingly impressed with the capabilities of DPP - at the speed they're improving it, it'll be at the top of the pile before long.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
DaveS
enthusiast
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 300
Loc: Acton, West London.
|
|
I tried to find the update page, after following the links from the Canon home page, it came up with "This page has vanished" or words to that effect. Any ideas?
Dave
--------------------
DaveS's Flickr Photos
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2731
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
I assume you checked the US site as well as the UK based one? I've found it necessary to roam far and wide to get Canon updates. (DPReview forums list a later version, 3.5.1, but I'm not sure of its authenticity.)
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7969
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
DxO offers something similar for supported bodies and lenses.
Indeed; it was the first to do so. DPP's version is now pretty good, though. In fact I'm increasingly impressed with the capabilities of DPP - at the speed they're improving it, it'll be at the top of the pile before long.
In terms of features DPP may be improving but I find the user interface is still horrible and slow compared to Capture One pro. Not that I have C1 that works for my 40D thanks to not being able to get a new enough version from a shop  With the 300D I much prefered the results from C1 than the other RAW convertors I tried (DPP and CS2).
Can't say I've noticed any vignetting on EF-S bodies from EF compatible lenses, certainly not on the macro lenses I use...lines are straight, corners of the frame are sharp and I don't think I've seen coloured fringes in macro shots so I think I'd still rather have C1 without the corection than DPP with.
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 5271
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Can't say I've noticed any vignetting on EF-S bodies from EF compatible lenses
Yeah, it'd be a pretty ropey lens that vignetted badly enough to be obvious using the middle half area of the image circle.
The thing that worries me is that, if manufacturers start to rely on "digital correction" instead of good lens design, the raw frames are going to be useless until they've gone through a process which is not always conducive to getting the optimum from an image - remapping pixel positions or values inevitably leads to some compromise in terms of noise or sensitivity.
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2731
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Quote:
... - remapping pixel positions or values inevitably leads to some compromise in terms of noise or sensitivity.
What surprised me is that after applying the corrections on a 5D raw file, I ended up with pixel dimensions larger than I started off with. Like 4389 x 2926 instead of 4368 x 2912 - it's all an illusion.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
DaveS
enthusiast
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 300
Loc: Acton, West London.
|
|
No I didn't, for some reason I thought only the UK one would work D'oh. 
I'll make some more strenuous efforts now! 
Dave
--------------------
DaveS's Flickr Photos
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
